Talk:Harveys Creek/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 13:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Link the townships as you've done in the main body

Done.

" High-Quality Coldwater Fishery and a Migratory Fishery" -is there no article with a summary of classifications? If not there should be.

I believe that one can exist for HQ-CWF and will work on it when I get a chance.

Harveys Creek was used as a water supply as early as the early -Rep of "early"

Fixed.

A river map in the infobox would be good of course...

Will work on getting one.

@Dr. Blofeld: There is now this, but it's too tall to fit into the infobox comfortably. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Course

"Slightly more than a mile " -convert 1|mi?

Okay. Done.

Hydrology

"In the mid-1970s," -repeated three times. You could get away with merging and not mentioning it again. In the third instance you could say "during the same period"

Done.

Geography

"Harveys Creek is in the Wyoming Valley.[13" -this should be at the top, not stray at the bottom.

Done.

Watershed

"However, its source is in the quadrangle of Harveys Lake. It also f" -however and also grate with me here, please find a way to avoid it.

Done.

Are there really no articles for rockfill or earthfill dam? I would delink.

There are articles, under different links. (Redirects, actually) --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History

"made on official" -an?

Yes. Done. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

" Plunkett's Battle" -if it was major, why is there no article?

Who knows. One of the shortcomings of Wikipedia, I guess. Or maybe it's here, but under another name.

I'd hardly call communities with under 300 people "major". Remove major

I see your point, but they are major for the Harveys Creek watershed.

Delink water supply

Why?

The content is all here for GA but it isn't structured in the way I would have done it. I always prefer reading about the history first and finding a way to merge short sections into others. In places some paragraphs would seem to belong further up and some shuffling needed to make it flow better. It's not stopping it being promoted to GA though, and I'd guess it's probably in a standard order according to WP:River guidelines.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passing comment. I agree that the layout needs attention. Putting History first is standard for most articles, and I checked, it is also standard for river articles - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers#Article_structure_guidelines. The Biology and Recreation sections are rather short; per MOS:BODY: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose". Images squeeze text, and intrude into following sections, which is another layout issue. There is a tendency to use statistics without explanation, as in the Tributaries and the Hydrology and climate section, which gives the article a feel of notes toward an article, rather than the finished article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think History should come first and I think biology and geography could probably be merged. It's not just the section ordering either which doesn't seem right, it's also the paragraph/sentence structuring in places which I think needs to be ordered better and the article will read a lot better for it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the course-hydrology/geography/watershed-other stuff is the way it's always been done with Pennsylvania streams. Certainly since 2013 (when I became active in those kinds of articles), and before that to a good extent. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: Passable even in the order as it is?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think the article is in the best order and am not convinced about the way in which certain paragraphs are structured, I think the content is basically there for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]